ArticleBJGP open2021
Alternative approaches to managing respiratory tract infections: a survey of public perceptions.
Article in BJGP open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRespiratory tract infections (RTIs) are a common reason for people to consult in primary care, and contribute to antibiotic overuse and antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Alternative approaches to supporting patients with RTIs may help, but it is important to understand public perceptions about these approaches before they are widely implemented.
aimTo describe public perceptions regarding finger-prick testing, back-up antibiotic prescriptions (BUPs), and alternatives to traditional consultations for RTIs, and identify factors associated with favouring these approaches. DESIGN &
settingOnline national survey (HealthWise Wales) with linked primary care health record data.
methodSurvey item response distributions were described. Associations between responses about consultation alternatives, BUP, and finger-prick point-of-care testing (POCT), and potential explanatory variables, were explored using logistic regression.
resultsA total of 8752 participants completed the survey between 2016 and 2018. The survey found 76.7% (
conclusionConsulting with pharmacists, using electronic communication tools, and finger-prick testing are widely acceptable approaches. BUP was described as acceptable less often, and is likely to require greater information and support when used.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.